the University Concourse
Volume III, Issue 6
April 30, 1998
Table of Contents

Send this article to a friend


This piece is part of a larger section called 'Editor's Postscript'.
To see all of that section, click on these lines.

A final thought on the household issue

Apropos of my concern that frequent, mandatory, one-on-one meetings between coordinators and RDs were bound to have a chilling effect on household life, a reader recently said to me, "I don't see anything wrong with it; you'd have to show me evidence that the RDs were somehow abusing the confidentiality of the coordinators."

Here I point out that a practice can be bad without being abusive. Every mother or father knows that to stand continually over their children's shoulders -- telling them what to do and criticizing every mistake the instant it's made -- is bad parenting. But we wouldn't call it child abuse. Similarly, we can criticize Student Life policies without accusing Student Life officials of abusing students. In my opinion, even if no RD ever betrayed coordinator confidentiality; even if they were very careful and never asked intrusive questions about what was going on in particular households; even if they didn't impose punishments on coordinators who didn't show; even if coordinators said they didn't mind the regular meetings, it would still be a bad policy -- tending, however gradually, toward the destruction of the household system.


Related Articles:
• How not to help households, Kathleen van Schaijik (III,1)
• About households (1), Catherine Blum (III,2)
• About households (2), Gregory M.A. Gronbacher (III,2)
• An outsider's perspective on the household problem, Matt McGuiness (III,2)
• An alum's perspective on households, Christopher P. Wright (III,2)
• What were households meant to be?, Kathleen van Schaijik (III,5)
• A thought about what might be behind the household problem, Martha L. Blandford (III,6)
• Student Life Office's image tarnished by failure to respond to thoughtful criticism, Susan C. Fischer (III,6)
  • A final thought on the household issue, Kathleen van Schaijik (III,6)


By the same author:
• NFP, by itself, does not compromise the marriage vocation, (I,1)
• What is a 'real' Catholic education?, (I,2)
• Orthodox not paradox, (I,3)
• NFP and connaturality, (I,4)
• How does a university evangelize?, (I,4)
• Thomism and intellectual freedom, (I,5)
• Keeping our worship in step with 'what the Spirit is saying' to FUS, (I,7)
• Can charismatics and traditionalists peacefully coexist?, (II,1)
• The horror of polygamy and the persistence of chauvinistic theories in Catholic academia, (II,1)
• The challenge of the Concourse: discussion without (much) contention, (II,2)
• When old ideas are breaking up, (II,3)
• Why the polygamy problem is not as passe as it appears: Kathleen van Schaijik responds to her critics, (II,4)
• Why 'charismatic spirituality' belongs at the heart of our communal life, (II,9)
• What is the University Concourse?, (III,1)
• How not to help households, (III,1)
• Silence betokens ... What?, (III,3)
• The freedom of stricture, (III,4)
• What were households meant to be?, (III,5)
• Different degrees of authority, (III,5)
• Last words (for now), (III,6)
• A suggestion regarding Extraordinary Ministers, (III,6)
• Catholic teaching on capital punishment, (III,6)
  • A final thought on the household issue, (III,6)
• What is our mission, really?, (III,6)
• What if Shakspere wasn't Shakespeare?, (III,6)
• Clinton's sorry legacy, (III,6)
• Evolution, (III,6)
• Intimidated? Please don't be., (III,6)
• A gift for the graduates of '98, (III,6)
• A point of policy, (III,6)
• A point of principle, (III,6)
• A word of thanks, (III,6)
• Love Never Leaves, (IV,1)
• Faith and Reason, (IV,2)
• A different perspective on the modesty question, (IV,5)
• Strangers to the world, (IV,6)
• Happy & sad, (IV,7)
• Oxford gaining on Shakspere, (IV,7)
• Of private and collegiate morality, (IV,7)
• Newman, education and context, (IV,7)
• Witnesses to Faith in the face of death, (IV,7)
• Viva the class of '99!, (IV,7)
• A prize winning physicist out of his depth, (IV,7)
• A positive psychology, (IV,7)
• How to become a leader, (IV,7)
• Campus politics, (IV,7)
• Thanksgiving, (IV,7)
• New face, same spirit, (V,1)
• The 'Stratford man' and the Shakespearean canon: no match at all, (V,3)
• Bringing the masses from starvation to full strength, (V,4)
• Branching out through Christus Magister, (V,6)
• Kathleen van Schaijik replies to John Doman on Shakespeare, (V,6)
• A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship, (V,7)
• Fr. Michael's achievement, (V,8)
• Charity may be severe, (V,8)
• On the other side of the same coin, (V,8)
• Shakespeare debate update, (V,8)
• Beware of economic Puritanism, (V,8)
• What the education debate is and isn't about, (V,8)
• The Weimar Republicans, (V,8)
• Drawing out an analogy, (V,8)
• Dear Class of 2000, (V,8)
• How to support the Concourse by buying books, (V,8)
• Thanksgiving, (V,8)
• The evil of exorcising judgement, (VI,1)
• Jump Start, (VII,1)
• It's not the Vatican, it's the laity, (VII,1)
• Abusing NFP, (VII,1)


[back to top]

© The University Concourse, April 30, 1998